Thank you love. Once again you have spoken for me.Do you think opinion is fact? I'm pretty sure that every materialist respects the difference between fact and opinion.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Thank you love. Once again you have spoken for me.Do you think opinion is fact? I'm pretty sure that every materialist respects the difference between fact and opinion.
So what? Me having a different opinion doesn't mean that he's doing anything wrong. So he's not doing anything wrong and I have no right to stop him.Does not follow. You can make an opinion that it is wrong, that the agency of the decisions is evil.
So what? Me having a different opinion doesn't mean that he's doing anything wrong. So he's not doing anything wrong and I have no right to stop him.
You owe me one irony meter.You are talking complete nonsense for weeks on end.
"Desire for sham"? What does that mean? How would you know my desires?We are just discussing your desire for sham absolute confidence by asserting good and evil as fact. That is why you come up with science possibly destroying opinion, but not come up with religion possibly destroying fact.
You owe me one irony meter.
That isn't true because their are a plethora (the majority of evolutionists actually) that believe in God and the supernatural. Most "evolutionists" are theists.All evolutionists are social darwinists regarding what is good and evil and ironic as fact.
That's weird, because I accept evolution and yet I am not a social Darwinist. Guess you're wrong, then.All evolutionists are social darwinists regarding what is good and evil and ironic as fact.
I think he is happier living in his delusion where all atheists, materialists, evolutionists, etc. all think exactly the same way and have exactly the same beliefs. Tragic really.That's weird, because I accept evolution and yet I am not a social Darwinist. Guess you're wrong, then.
Of course I can't. According to you he's not doing anything wrong. He's just of a different opinion than I am.When you have the opinion it's wrong you can stop him.
"Desire for sham"? What does that mean? How would you know my desires?
Of course I can't. According to you he's not doing anything wrong. He's just of a different opinion than I am.
That's weird, because I accept evolution and yet I am not a social Darwinist. Guess you're wrong, then.
Nope. I didn't. How'd that happen?You reject subjectivity, you reject any theory in which freedom is regarded as real and relevant in the universe. It means inevitably your interpretation of natural selection must be social darwinism.
Why do you feel it so obvious that I am "deep into it" specifically? What did I say?Because it is a general human temptation to spike confidence illegitemately with factual certitude about what is good and evil. And the way you talk about things it is clear you are deep into it.
Nope. I didn't. How'd that happen?
Why do you feel it so obvious that I am "deep into it" specifically? What did I say?
I agree, subjective truths can exist, they are just often incorrect or misleading. Also they don't do much good for anyone but yourself.You too reject subjectivity I remember.
Making for this general atmosphere on the forum, where anything established on a subjective basis is attacked as wrong, because it is not objectivity.
Objectivity get's a free pass, because all religionists also accept objectivity, besides accepting subjectivity But evolutionists do not accept subjectivity. They deny freedom is real, and they demand evidence in regards to questions about what the agency of a decision is. There is no atmosphere of safeguarded freedom of opinion, there is attack of any opinion to try to replace it with fact.
You said if you accept evolution you reject subjectivity. I haven't rejected subjectivity. You say I have. And now you state that if I reject subjectivity I must be a social Darwinist. I am highly against social dawinism as I am the opposite which is a secular humanist. For this to be your logic must be faulty somewhere. My guess is ...everywhere.You too reject subjectivity I remember.
Making for this general atmosphere on the forum, where anything established on a subjective basis is attacked as wrong, because it is not objectivity.
Objectivity get's a free pass, because all religionists also accept objectivity, besides accepting subjectivity But evolutionists do not accept subjectivity. They deny freedom is real, and they demand evidence in regards to questions about what the agency of a decision is. There is no atmosphere of safeguarded freedom of opinion, there is attack of any opinion to try to replace it with fact.
You did a terrible job, merely providing vague insults to my character and failing to provide a single specific example. Please provide reasoning for your erroneous assumption so I can point out why you are mistaken.I already explained that before how I reached the conclusion. You go read what I wrote before to you.